Cold Case Review of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier murder to proceed

you’re assuming premeditated murder then - for O’Reilly certainly- but for Bailey? I really can’t get myself into that zone.

She smelled a fire over the Christmas period, wow. You're gonna hang no doubt on that. Have you ever stuck your head out a window in winter, or taken a walk?

I didn't see a fire, I didn't hear a fire, I smelled it your honour, and my nose was able to pick out the location of said fire.

As if.

It wouldn't even be permissible in a trial, let alone beyond reasonable doubt. You're really scraping the barrel here @tibruit

I know but she was also the victim of abuse and was still living with and in a relationship with Bailey when the murder happened and for years after. He had influence.

What influence does Bailey have today? What influence did he have over her daughters that hated him, yet they gave evidence supporting his version of the scratches?

Her or her daughters could simply say whatever they like, yet they have not done so.

Oh I understand what she saying. But you can't say it is beyond doubt, it is full of inconsistencies. She had every chance to tell the Gardai about this at the time and many times since then but she didn't. Her father made his statement on the same day as her on 07/02/97 in their house. She made further statements in June and in 2002 and never mentioned the fire. The story is full of inconsistencies. Her mother made no mention of the fire, and yet she says she discussed it with her mother. Her father said the Gardai were the ones that brought up the fire in the first place. He said he remembered it "around Christmas" but his wife did not. This fits because the Gardai took a statement from Ursula about her own rubbish fire on the 10/02/97. Surely she would have mentioned the fire at Christmas. After all she is supposed to have discussed it with her daughter because it was so unusual?

I have no doubt of her sincerity, I am sure she would swear on a stack of bibles if asked. But memory can be untrustworthy, especially when people are keen to help the police, and the police are keen to make a certain case. If this is your standard of "beyond doubt" then I don't know, please don't serve on a jury.

It's not impossible that there was a fire at Christmas, but if it was at Christmas, then a mattress was burned. If so, then Jules Thomas knew because she told the police she burned a mattress during her interrogation.

Again we come back to the point. If Bailey is the culprit, then Jules Thomas would know. The Gardai tried to make the case that Jules Thomas was covering for Ian Bailey. They believe Bailey burned clothes, boots and a mattress in this fire. They wanted to find evidence that the fire was at Christmas, and they set about getting statements to show this. That's the Garda view.

My view is that I think it is much more straightforward to see Jules Thomas as simply telling the truth and the reports of a fire at Christmas as mistaken. I don't think it makes much sense to burn papers and a mattress when all you need to burn is a few bloody clothes and boots. The pictures makes it clear it was a big fire, much bigger than needed.

But you're saying that Jules Thomas didn't know about a fire at Christmas. You're saying she burned a mattress a few weeks earlier, and that Ian Bailey relit the same fire and then burned his bloody clothes, boots, as well as a bit more of the mattress that didn't burn so that Louise Kennedy saw it. And because he was seen with his long black coat on the 31st December, he must have burned his first long black coat in the fire on St Stephen's Day. So two fires and two coats.

This does not make sense.

"A fire that the guards stated had nothing of evidentiary value in it"

They were wrong to think that

and the problem with yourself and others here is that you think all the witnesses that indicate Bailey`s guilt are bad eggs and most of the Gardaí. That is patent nonsense.

So now the Gardai are wrong and you’re right- not to mention your post above where everyone else here is wrong and you’re right.

I don’t at all think that all the witnesses are “bad eggs”- they have all given testimony that has been changed and revised in many cases at the bequest of the Gardai - some have given “evidence” years after the event - it’s absolute common sense to say that such testimony is quite unreliable but it’s also recognised that the people providing such evidence believe what they are saying - the two concepts and be held true at the same time - there’s no ill will to those people

"But memory can be untrustworthy."

Not in Delia`s case if she was only home from London for a few days over Christmas. No confusion about where or when there.

"if it was Christmas, then a mattress was burned."

I`m a country dweller and I`ve burned a few mattresses in my time back when it was normal to do so. It could take months and three or four attempts to burn it out fully.

"you`re saying she burned a mattress a few weeks earlier."

I don`t know that at all.

"And because he was seen with his long black coat on the 31st of December, he must have burned his first long black coat in the fire on St Stephens Day."

I don`t know if he had another black coat specifically. The only reason that a black coat is associated with the murder is Marie Farrell`s Kealfada story and that episode is under serious question at this stage although I would have little doubt that the Gardaí believed her at the time. But a coat was burned in the fire and the Gardaí should have known better than to think he would have been out and about over Christmas in a coat that he wore on the night of the murder.

"So two fires and two coats."

I don`t know that there was two fires but there was clearly one that Christmas time. He may have had a number of coats.

"This does not make sense."

Well it ain`t rocket science.

Translation - you have no coherent response after your nonsense point was challenged.

You were the one who came out with nonsense about bricks and tipping points, not me.

You missed the context, the OP said influence.

It is very likely that Farrell was tucked up in her bed with her hot water bottle that night.

Im wondering if bailey was man she picked up. He would have been freezing out at that time..and some were saying he had no clothes on. And she gave him lift back..it makes sense. He made coffee wrote an article while chatting away with Marie. She headed off home but thought it was suspicious he was putting on fire in back yard but thought nothing of it.

The violence towards Jules is only one aspect of it. I quoted from his diary in a reply to you last night where he expressed a desire to kill multiple people and went on to describe how he would do it. He didn`t plan to shoot, stab or suffocate them. He said he would stub them out like cigarette ends. Very prophetic words. People should keep those words in mind when they look at photos of Sophie`s head and facial injuries.